I had a real bad itch when I wasn't sure about the OM-D. But now that I've settled on the OM-D and now that I've been fleshing out my system with some damn nice lenses that itch has subsided (somewhat). Don't get me wrong, I've love to have a X-E1, in fact I'd love to get my chubby hands around every camera ever made. I'd love to play with cameras everyday for the rest of my life ... but now that I've settle on the OM-D/µ4/3 as my camera of choice ... I am less compelled to slam on my brakes every time I pass a camera store, rush in and fondle every body in the place. (My twitch is gone ... but I can never go back to Camera World again.)
It was during this unstable period, before I settled, when I realize that for me, the slight differences in IQ between cameras wasn't all that important. The difference in dynamic range between a Nikon FF, a Leica, a Fuji, an Olympus won't significantly improve or diminish the impact of my images. I still shoot with a news-esque eye, I like people over architectural, action over landscape, handheld over pods. I realized that I need a fast handling camera that can consistently capture the fleeting look in an eye over a camera which can deliver a wide dynamic rande with 28 zones but I end up with a back of a head.
My style is to snatch impact from capturing 'the decisive moment' not from capturing a mesmerizing cornucopia of color range with details in the highlights and shadows.
One day, after I get real cozy with the OM-D and µ4/3, when I can grab my camera and dial in the setting, toss on a lens to get the shot I want, more as a reflex than a conscience thought process ... then ... maybe I'll pick up a camera that is more IQ oriented than Handling/Speed oriented.
I appreciated what PDH stated as his conclusions, (similar to what I discovered).
Gary